[Jeff Chandler]

.

.

"Yes! Yes! Oh let me taste your tears, Linda! Mmm your tears are so yummy and sweet! Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness!"

.

.

[the invisib1e hand]

There’s just no there there.

never before has such a specious collection of syllables been passed of by even the NYTimes as pertaining.

[APatientMan]

LINDA GREENHOUSE: Please, rule me. I only desire freedoms that require no responsibility from me. Bahhh, bahhh, bahh...

[Popman]

I wasted my time reading this pablum thinking there might be an rational intelligent argument presented.....to justify the court not overturning Obamacare....

I guess I was expecting too much from a libtard...

[jeffc]

This just scares me. There’s too many people in this country now that sincerely believe there is no limit to the government’s power. Too many people think the Constitution is out of date. I think they should just go make their own country and leave us alone.

[End Times Sentinel]

Not just stupid, but ape-like ugly to boot.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If the Commerce Clause was intended to allow the federal government to take over everything, why did the founders go to all the trouble of listing its limited enumerated powers and granting all other power to the states or to the individual?

The answer is that the Commerce Clause was never intended to trump all.

[WeatherGuy]

You mean to tell me that Linda Greenhouse is for ObamaCare?? The Linda Greenhouse. Is that what you're saying? Well, I guess that settles it then. Only one question.

Who's Linda Greenhouse?

[Rennes Templar]

Note on the NYT website:

“Beginning in April, visitors to NYTimes.com will have access to 10 free articles per month instead of 20.”

[RagingBull]

Ladies and gentleman, I believe we have found the literary equivalent of pink slime finely textured bovine feces.

If you eliminate the fillers and extenders, the only points seem to be:

1. It's unprecedented, but Congress has previously done unprecedented things, so therefore it's ok. (Everything the first Congress did was unprecedented, no?)
2. Since it's 1/6th the economy, Congress can "basically do whatever it wants in the health care sector" (Is it also ok to jail anybody who criticizes government health care?)

[sforkjoe57]

Never before? How about never again. As in never again should a government enjoy a level of police state power that allows rounding up dissidents, loading them in box cars, and hauling them to the gas chambers. Roe vs Wade permits an arbitrary standard for “living human being” so dissidents can be declared “not living” by the police state allowing their imprisonment and execusion without benefit of trial.

[Deagle]

No need to continue our questions about the law. It is simply Unconstitutional and should be repealed.

It really does not take a genius (or even a college graduate) to figure this out. Our problem is that with the assignment of such liberal justices to Supreme Court, that law has become meaningless.

That of course means that the Liberal justices either need to rethink the Constitution or resign from the court. I know, fat chance but that is the only thing that might, just might save America as we know it.

[BamaBlue]

You know what’s really funny...sad...but funny is that the federal government years ago mandated that a person could not be turned away for medical care. Now we have a “problem” that the uninsured are causing a “cost shifting” to those that do have insurance. As usual the government created a problem that they are now trying to fix via unconstitutional means.

And...the other incredible thing is all those uninsured were already “baked in” to the current premiums we all pay anyway. A solution that wasn’t necessary in the first place...unless you want to take over the society...something like student loans...the next problem that will implode.

[Mack the knife]

The first paragraph of this screed is breathtaking!!

---

Journalistic convention requires that when there are two identifiable sides to a story, each side gets its say, in neutral fashion, without the writer’s thumb on the scale. This rule presents a challenge when one side of a controversy obviously lacks merit. But mainstream journalism has learned to navigate those challenges, choosing evolution over “intelligent design,” for example, and treating climate change naysayers as cranks.

---

This illuminates the mindset of all Liberals, including the MSM. They give lip service to the fact that intellectual debate, including journalism, requires giving weight to both sides of an arguement ... so they brand the other side’s arguements as without merit, and “treat them as cranks”.

This explains:
Pilosi’s “Are You Serious!” response to questions of the unconstitutionality of the health care mandate;
The global warming debate;
The Obama birth certificate debate;
(there is not enough room to list them all).